Originally Posted by jbird82
(Post 13359610)
So what's your explanation on why the airlines don't seem thrilled about selling the slots?
|
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359759)
Nobody sells their assets to create new competition. Any of you guys ever run a business? It's hard. And the airline business is one of the hardest.
It's usually not the government's job to create monopoly-type conditions in order to benefit large corporations that are unable to make it on their own, public utilities being an exception. . |
US/DL are both full of it if they think this transaction would benefit anybody but themselves. They don't care about bringing competitive fares and service to these airports. They want to keep the competition and low fares out. If US can no longer profitably serve LGA, they can easily sell the slots to other airlines can can serve them profitably. Instead they squat on their slots flying 10 round trips a day between LGA and PHL--a route far better served by Amtrak. Just because legacy carriers find it hard to make money on domestic flights doesn't mean it is as difficult for every carrier. If they can't make money, charge more and provide a better product or start cutting back and leave the market to more competitive companies.
|
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359563)
The airlines planned to use these flights to serve smaller markets. Low cost airlines rarely fly to smaller markets -- and certainly wouldn't use these slots for that purpose if they got hold of them.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359563)
I hear a lot of bellyaching about high fares, but the reality is that it is EXTREMELY difficult for a network carrier to make money on domestic flying. I think it's best for the consumer if enough legacy carriers survive to maintain COMPETING global networks. We don't really need more competition between NYC and LA.
By imposing ridiculous conditions that no businessman would accept, the net result will be that the slots remain underutilized. DL planned to replace US's turboprops with jets -- adding something like 2 million seats to LGA alone. That's not bad for competition. And now the net result will be nothing -- unless the Obama administration realizes the folly of this (or perhaps after the next election). It's tough to bellyache about "conditions that a businessman would accept" when the leaders of one of the airlines in question were more than willing to accept that same government's cheese to be around to bellyache. Hubris, we hardly knew thee........ |
Originally Posted by jbird82
(Post 13359348)
Sounds to me like Delta and US don't want an airline like Southwest coming into DCA or LGA to provide competition to their nonstop flights that they like to gauge passengers on.
|
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
(Post 13359883)
The Obama administration does not get it economically. However, if the government was really interested in healthy legacy carriers, it would have let HP/US and UA go under, rather than doling out ATSB money earlier in the decade.
I often find your comments offensive, but this may be the most disgusting sentiment you've ever expressed. I would suggest an apology. The demise of HP and US would have been a completely random act of bad luck brought on by international terrorists. HP was simply between financing when the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. The credit markets were frozen, and the folks who were going to routinely loan money to HP walked away. The gov't stepped in with a short term loan (at usurious rates) which US paid back early and then netted the gov't millions of dollars in profit from the sale of the warrants. This put America West in position to then buy the failing US Airways, saving tens of thousands of jobs and maintaining another successful global airline competitor. Frankly, saying this was all a mistake is simply misguided and downright mean. It's outrageously inconsiderate and stupid. |
Originally Posted by squatch
(Post 13359735)
the explanation (which is obvious reading his posts) is that he does not like obama.
anyway, let's face it , there is nothing in this situation that i can think of more crushingly uncompetitive then delta controlling all of their slots and most of us's former slots at LGA and the opposite at DCA. add to that that delta's operation at LGA is probably the one of the worst customer service experiences that a traveler can have., and there is no surprise this happened. "significant consumer benefits"??? how unbelievably laughable. There's little consumer benefit in giving LGA slots to WN so that they can fly to the same city pairs already served by other airlines, or AirTran for more flights to Atlanta, Baltimore, Milwaukee or Akron. The slot swap was supposed to help service to smaller Northeast cities. There's already competition on almost all of the routes from CO at EWR and on some from AA at LGA and/or JFK. DL is just taking over US' flights with larger planes. |
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359759)
Nobody sells their assets to create new competition. Any of you guys ever run a business? It's hard. And the airline business is one of the hardest.
|
Originally Posted by longtime lurker
(Post 13360123)
The relevant market is not DCA or LGA - it's all 3 Washington-area airports (DCA, IAD, BWI) and all 6 NYC-area airports (LGA, JFK, EWR, HPN, ISP, SWF). CO has a much higher concentration at EWR than DL would have at LGA. Same with UA at IAD versus US at DCA. DL and US' market concentration in the larger WAS and NYC markets would be low, even after the slot swap.
There's little consumer benefit in giving LGA slots to WN so that they can fly to the same city pairs already served by other airlines, or AirTran for more flights to Atlanta, Baltimore, Milwaukee or Akron. The slot swap was supposed to help service to smaller Northeast cities. There's already competition on almost all of the routes from CO at EWR and on some from AA at LGA and/or JFK. DL is just taking over US' flights with larger planes. Personally, I think America is lucky to have the commercial aviation network we have. We really have the best of all worlds. If you're price sensitive, you can travel between almost any two points for a very low price. At the same time, we have several hub and spoke airlines that "connect the dots" with frequent service. Only a fool would argue that, in the aggregate, airfares in the United States are too expensive. I wouldn't trade our air service for any other country's.
Originally Posted by jbird82
(Post 13360284)
I agree with you and that is what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. My bellyaching over ticket prices comes from my admittedly rudimentary understanding of how airlines price their flights. For example, why is trip A-B-C so much cheaper than B-C? Other than monopolistic gauging for the direct flight, I don't know the reason.
|
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13360360)
Personally, I think America is lucky to have the commercial aviation network we have. We really have the best of all worlds. If you're price sensitive, you can travel between almost any two points for a very low price. At the same time, we have several hub and spoke airlines that "connect the dots" with frequent service. Only a fool would argue that, in the aggregate, airfares in the United States are too expensive. I wouldn't trade our air service for any other country's. The reason for the DOT imposing the slot sale conditions that require a sale to an airline with a small presence at DCA/LGA is to foster competition. Existing slot restrictions are not conducive to fair market competition. Allowing new players to enter the market closer approximates these free market conditions that so many Americans hold up as a vital part of what makes this country so great. If such increased competition leads to the demise of a legacy carrier, then that is what needs to happen to keep the industry profitable (healthy). |
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
Yeah, that's just brilliant. I suspect many of the 32,000 people who draw their paychecks from US might disagree.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
I often find your comments offensive, but this may be the most disgusting sentiment you've ever expressed. I would suggest an apology.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
The demise of HP and US would have been a completely random act of bad luck brought on by international terrorists. HP was simply between financing when the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. The credit markets were frozen, and the folks who were going to routinely loan money to HP walked away.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
The gov't stepped in with a short term loan (at usurious rates) which US paid back early and then netted the gov't millions of dollars in profit from the sale of the warrants.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
This put America West in position to then buy the failing US Airways, saving tens of thousands of jobs and maintaining another successful global airline competitor.
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359974)
Frankly, saying this was all a mistake is simply misguided and downright mean. It's outrageously inconsiderate and stupid.
Does it only count if it's one's favorite airline that gets saved? Or if you can day-trade the stock? An aside--this has nothing to do with "small markets that don't have service." US and DL could provide that service tomorrow if they want to. It's about establishing market pricing power. The feds get it. The bit about "service to small communities" is essentially a feel-good headfake and talking point. |
I personally do not have a problem with this slot swap.
There are too many carriers out there and further consolidation of routes and carriers is necessary. The LCC are doing nothing to help this. I agree with other posters that the LCCs are not going to use DCA or LGA to serve smaler markets like SYR, MDT, ABE and the like. If DL's plan is, as they say, to create a domestic hub at LGA then the slot swap would in fact INCREASE competition as flyers in the NE would have an additional connecting options (CO-EWR, US-PHL/DCA, UA-IAD, DL-LGA). Yes, they're all legacy carriers, but it's still competition. How many downturns in the industry do we have to endure before folks get it in their heads that current level of competition is artificially deflating airfares and actually HARMING the overall health and viability of the industry. Funny thing is that if US or DL failed, the gov't would allow another carrier to waltz in and take over everything overnight. |
Originally Posted by iahphx
(Post 13359740)
As usual, Scott Kirby has this exactly right.
Jim |
Originally Posted by awaflyboy
(Post 13359690)
USNews Now: An Important Message from US Airways President Scott Kirby
Feb. 9, 2010 There are still options out there for US Airways if it wants to rid itself of its LaGuardia operations - it can deal with a variety of carriers for a cash transaction. It depends how willing US Airways would be to opening the door for low-fare competition at LaGuardia. |
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
(Post 13359256)
What's surprising is that the requirement to divest slots is surprising to anyone.
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
The dirty little secret is that if Southwest gets their hands on a dozen more slots at LGA and aitran (or whomever) gets them at DCA, it'll cause fares to go down. That is better for the consumer than overinflated fares from a few additional small destinations to LGA or DCA.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:30 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.